Cadbury and Kraft ‘battle’ shows why newspapers need to reign themselves in

I’m sure lots of you have read about the proposed takeover of Cadbury by Kraft and the ensuing war of words all over the web about how such a deal would dilute Cadbury’s values etc etc.

Whilst all this is going on, it shows why media firms, like the Guardian, for example, need to reign in their headline writers.

For example, in this piece in the Guardian, recently, the headline says:

“Stitzer backs Cadbury’s values in attack on Kraft’s ‘unbridled’ capitalism”

And then rather quickly, in the story itself, it emerges that:

“Though Stitzer did not mention Kraft, he went on to attack overleveraged deals”.

So where on earth did this headline come from?

A clear attempt, of course, of ‘sexing up’ the story.

The old rule of “first simplify, then exaggerate” clearly applies. The result is a misleading headline that, for me, affects how much I trust the publication to cover stories accurately.

Read it for yourself and post your comments below.

I think it’s dangerous when newspapers that should know better, such as the Guardian, resort to ‘headline marketing’ in this way.

There are more important things for newspapers than search engine optimisation, such as presenting a truthful picture to readers.

Comments are Closed

All rights reserved @ SustainableSmartBusiness